Eric Linnhoff's crack notwithstanding, I am not now, nor have I ever been,
opposed to new ideas. It appears, however, that I must apologize for my
preference for ideas that actually make sense, as this preference does not seem
to be universally shared. ;<)
George wrote:
>There is a period of time defined for practice. Our sessions - when we were
>defining the rules and working the bugs out - were an hour (per class).
>With about 30 competitors in the session, most were able to get 5 or 6
>practice runs in.
It appears, then, that your practice would be approximately 3 hours for a
90-car event. If there are more cars, does practice get longer, or do the
competitors just get fewer practice runs?
>I do this to rid the competiton of the navigational aspect the SCCA has
>built in to their rules. After several practice laps, one should not get
>lost on course, one should have learned the course and know what lines they
>wish to use, for example.
It would help your cause in cases like this to simply state your preference for
having a practice session. IMHO (I'd wager I'm not alone here), a
properly-designed Solo II course has no "navigational aspect" built in and can
easily be driven without getting lost, without practice. If you want to have
practice sessions in your events, that's enough justification for it. It's your
show.
>This is not out of line, what other motorsport
>does not have practice runs?
This statement carries the implicit assumption that Solo II _needs_ to be "more
like" some other form of motorsport. If you are operating on such an
assumption, maybe you should explain to us why we should accept it.
>The time element is no worse than walking a course. My practice runs started
>at 8:00AM, and were completed by 11:00.
For what appears to be a 90-car event. Would the same thing be true of 180-200
entries? I ask this in good faith, not as a challenge.
>But then the "qualifying" begins. Three runs, exactly the same as the SCCA.
>except the competitors are bracketed based on their best timed run.
What prevents "sandbagging" at this stage of the event?
>My rulebook is about a tenth the size of the SCCA rulebook. The car does not
>matter, and there is no navigational skill required. My car classifications
>are simple, and will not change year to year (with monthly "clarifications")
>as does the SCCA classing structure. The winner is the best driver that day
>on that course. PERIOD.
I don't see the above claims borne out by your description of the rules and the
events. If you truly succeed in making the "car not matter" and assuring that
"the winner is the best driver that day," you'll have succeeded where every
other form of motorsport has fallen short in some way or another.
>Solo DSC does work,
>and it works well.
Time will tell.
>That is where the SCCA should head with their program. The driver should be
>the only factor to winning, as he/she is in Solo DSC.
I don't buy your claims at this time, but it sounds like you're not too far
from having actual events. If the concept works, that fact should be evident
pretty early on. I remain skeptical but open to being proven wrong.
Jay
|